Saturday, June 12, 2010

Same Old Same Old

The news from the Gulf doesn't get any better, nor do the responses to the ever-burgeoning disaster. It really shouldn't surprise us: some problems are beyond the ability of politicians to solve, especially the current crop we have. It's a matter for engineers and project managers to solve and all the government can really do is give them the means to solve the problem and then get the hell out of their way.

There's plenty of news about the governmental response that could merit a denunciation or two, but frankly my heart isn't in it. I hated it when the Left excoriated Bush during the aftermath of Katrina and while it's understandable why some of my colleagues on the Right would feel the need and the justification to return the favor to Barack Obama, it really doesn't do much to solve the problem.

Don't get me wrong, K-Rod -- there's plenty to criticize Obama about for his response, or lack thereof. And you are correct about this, of course. Just saying that right now, we need let people who can actually solve the problem get to the business of solving it. I'm just weary of making the argument at the moment.

Jindal asked for fill to build up berms to protect the marshes and wetlands on his coast. Asked for help around May 1 or 2. The Army Corps of Engineers sat on it for a few weeks and then gave him about 2% of what he requested.

Mark, I am not defending Obama. I agree with some of your criticisms about his flat-footed handling of this crisis. But there are a LOT of folks who are far more knowledgeable about natural disasters, oil clean up, tidal flows, etc. who think the berms are a bad idea that could have some very negative unintended consequences. Folks in the Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, research scientists from LSU, and more.

The article linked below is just one example of scientists and engineers warning about the inefficacy and/or unintended consequences of the various berm proposals.

The original proposal would have cost almost 1 billion dollars, taken at least 9 months, and probably would have been partially washed away or greatly reduced by a single tropical storm. There is also the opportunity cost of tying up a lot of heavy equipment that could be used elsewhere.

I understand the impulse to 'do something' but does that make sense if 'something' is going to do as much or more harm than good and waste money and resources?

But there are a LOT of folks who are far more knowledgeable about natural disasters, oil clean up, tidal flows, etc. who think the berms are a bad idea that could have some very negative unintended consequences. Folks in the Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, research scientists from LSU, and more.

Good to know, but if that's the case than the administration needed to say that in response to Jindal. Look back at what I wrote initially -- I'm not trying to game this for political advantage. My personal view is that Obama's problem is that the bureaucracy and the various agencies involved are at cross-purposes and it's become damned near impossible to deal with these problems in a coherent fashion. This incident illustrates the problem nicely.

Mark, I think we are on the same page on this. I am not trying to game it either. If anyone is, it might be Jindal, but who can blame him when watching what is happening to his state and considering what happened to his predecessor for not looking like she was doing something. But my take on the bureaucracy is a little different. While bureaucratic overload is usually a bad thing, in this case, we had a state Executive who is not an engineer or environmental scientist, but is desperate to get something done trying to move a plan forward that may actually do harm. And you have some of his own state bureaucracies and multiple federal ones pointing out that his plan may do more harm than good.

Would it have been better if Obama handed him the billion and let the plan move forward? Very debatable.

Krod,What does 'over react' mean to you? I know what it means to me and most folks with a ecent grasp of the language. You made a dumb and defenseless statement and now you are practicing revisionism. Cop to it and move on.

Not familiar with what the Dutch offered to do. Can you send a link and explain why whatever they offered to do would have been more effective than everything that has taken place so far. The problem with the oil spill, as I see it, is that no one seems to know what to do to plug the well and those most qualified to try to plug it are the very same people who caused this catastrophe. It's a total bollocks with no real end in sight. As for Obama's response, I have already said I thought he has handled this poorly, at least from a PR and coordination point. But, given the nature of the disaster, I am still not sure what, specifically, could have been done that hasn't been done. No surprise...it's really difficult to work on a ruptured oil well 3 miles beneath the ocean.

As for Obama's leadership, I think he has been a great leader. He ran a campaign on providing Health Care Reform, economic recovery, and a turn away from neo-conservative foreign affairs. So far, he is accomplishing all three. I can find issues that I can criticize him for, such as his immediate response to this oil disaster, but overall, I think he is doing a great job. I don't expect many of you to think that, but it's what I believe.

As for Bush and Katrina, people are always told to evacuate, and there is always a large minority of people in any area who refuse to go. I don't think anyone was criticizing Bush for telling people to leave. Most of the criticism was directed at his response in the aftermath. The failure on the evacuation plans was laid, I think correctly, on the Mayor and Governor.